More handpicked essays just for you.
Controversy of the second amendment
The second amendment and availability of guns
The right to bear arms is a human right argumentative essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Controversy of the second amendment
Modify Second Amendment or not? How Will you feel when you see deafferents kind of people with guns near to you and your family in a college? Are you going to feel like they are trying to protect themselves for danger or not? Even if you do not see Them in a college, how will you fell? Opponents will say that they are in their right to bear them. They will insist also in this point; being protected is always better than be defenseless before any dangerous situation. I understand what they are saying however U.S constitution, which gives citizens the right to own guns, was wrote by a man who lived in a different time. This is the reason why modify the second amendment could mean advantages for the state for many reasons. It is believed that fear is a feeling which humans try to control, but they
They point of view are understandable because this law was an” auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the stat”. However, it was created to give protestant the chance to protect themselves in a time where they had the crown against. Those time people were facing more authorities abuse and delinquent attacks. The law was just applicable in people in disadvantage social. This law was mainly to protect citizens for an unfair society not for bearing even in safe situation because of the second amendment. The modification of the second amendment has been disuse and everyone has his own opinion. Some people believe that it’s modification can reduce fear in citizens and reduce gun violence. Other people think that this law as to stay as it is. Because it makes them feel save and defend themselves from risky positions. The world is evaluating and people too that is why keeping old laws as they were in the past might affect the
United States is a country that has problems with gun control, and this issue has many debates between whether or not people should be allowed to carry a gun on them. This free county not only for speech and religion, but also allows people to have the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment of the United States was written by our Founding Fathers,“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (Government). The main purpose of the Second Amendment when our Founding Fathers wrote this amendment was to help the American citizens to defend themselves from the government at that time, and other countries from invading their properties. However, the Second Amendment could be the opposite of what our Founding Fathers wanted it to be in the twenty-first century, because many criminals are taking advantage of the right to carry guns, which in example results with the purpose of showing off with their friends, revenge for their gang’s members, or try to be like their favorite hero in the movie they had watched. On July 20, 2012, a massive shooting occurred inside of a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. The tragedy happened during a midnight screening of the film The Dark Knight Rises which killed twelve people and injuring seventy others. In response, this alarmed our government to rethink about the current gun control law in America. In A Well Regulated Militia by Saul Cornell, the author informed to his audience the different views of gun ownership in early America, which part was the most important part of the debate, how did slavery affect the debate over militias in the South, the Continental army officer’s views, and the arguments be...
This amendment was fairly easy to add to the constitution, because most of the state constitutions had already install the amendment to their own (Wood). It was one of the short addressed problem other than the rights of protecting private property and quarters for soldiers during a war situation. The only argument against was by Anti-Federalist who wanted the ban of quartering completely. This argument was never acted on once the Bill of Rights was agreed on by the delegates (Morriss).
One reason we must have the second amendment is to protect the freedom for which our country fought so hard to win. The Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”[1] However, if these rights were ‘self-evident’, why did the founding fathers need to grant them to the states? We might as well ask why man is the way that he is, imperfect. We all wonder about this sad truth, but the fact remains that man is fallen. These rights are self-evident, obvious to human reason, but because humans are fallen, we are sometimes blinded to these apparent truths and we err in our rationality. King George was blind to these unalienable rights, as were Na...
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is stated in the United States Constitution as the Second Amendment. Several Americans wish to rid of guns from citizens, disobeying and disrespecting the Constitution. I shot my first gun when I was young and have always been surrounded by them. My neighbor does not leave the house without carrying one, nor does my eighteen year old friend. Never once have I felt unsafe or uneasy knowing that there was a gun close to me. The right to bare arms has become a popular local battle in which some people want to reduce the freedom of one owning firearms while others wish for the
The Second Amendment to the Constitution(Second Amendment) of the United States of America(USA) is one of the most controversial. The Second Amendment specifically grants that, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
The Second Amendment has always been met with much debate on whether gun control is constitutional or unconstitutional. The framers of the Second Amendment have left many people with different opinions on what its true intent was. Charles L. Blek Jr. and Joseph Sorban have two different views with many over lapping ideas and use court rulings, Second Amendment history, and past events in their articles to help support their positions.
Throughout the past decade or so the Second Amendment rights issues have arisen with the demand of individuals rights to keep and bear arms. The constitution states the “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In the court case upheld in the Supreme Court Columbia vs. Heller, the ongoing debate of this interpretation of the Second Amendment. Heller, a special officer in Washington D.C., was denied the right to being able to register a handgun to keep at home. This case was taken up to the Supreme Court due to Heller’s argument stating that the government of the nation’s capital must obey the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because these texts are the supreme law of the land. Heller’s belief of injunction was certain, “at least one of the founding fathers said that there will be times when the State or Federal Government will overstep its bounds and will need to be put back into its place.” There has not been any lower court cases or any true precedent case besides Columbia vs. Heller for Drake vs. Jerejian. Drake vs. Jerejian seeks an end to the unjustified denial of carry permits by the State of New Jersey; and the unreasonable restriction for concealed carry permits citing “justifiable need” or “urgent necessity” for the issuance of a permit. Constitutional rights are protected under the law and may not be denied by government officials because of perceived “need” or “necessity.” The Second Amendment should not only guarantee this right to possess firearms to members of militia but also to those who may grant this privilege, as well that it’s a right in our constitution. An individual’s Second Amendment right should se...
Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being committed with guns will be reduced and thus save lives. However while gun control laws may decrease criminals’ access to guns, the same laws restricts gun owning citizens who abide by the law; these citizens make up a great majority of the opposing side of this argument. These people argue that the law was made with the individual citizens in mind. This group believes that the Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to firearms. One major group that is in strong opposition of stricter gun control laws is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA argues that having stricter gun control laws will only hinder law-abiding citizens. The final outcome on this debate will mainly depend on how this Amendment is going to be interpreted.
The ease of obtaining a firearm in America fosters crime and a dangerous environment. Hence, the Second Amendment should be reinterpreted so that stricter gun laws can be implemented because modern citizens do not require guns, current background checks are flawed, gun accessibility has been abused by foreign and domestic criminals, and Americans cannot handle guns responsibly.... ... middle of paper ... ...
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states, that since there is a necessity for a Free State and regulated militia, the right of the American people to keep and bear arms would not be infringed by the United States government. One cannot stop and wonder the calamities that are caused by guns in their completely proper usage. This nation needs to have a talk over its malignant obsession with guns.
The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” They feel like their basic right is being restricted by not being able to carry. “Many states have adopted the “stand your ground” legislation, which asserts that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first” (Aronowitz and Vaughn 57). Pro-gun activist also think that having guns on campuses for protection will likely reduce the amount of mass shootings. Pro-gun activist believe that you can’t always rely on the police for
This also states that gun violence would be reduced and restrictions have already existed. It also states that the majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions. However, some people affirm that the Second Amendment protects the individual(s) right to own a gun. They state guns are needed for self-defense from the threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders (gun-control.procon.org, 2016). Gun ownership deters crime rather than cause more crime.
Many people in today’s society also wonder if the Second Amendment is obsolete when compared to present day issues and modern gun technology. If modern day blogs and protests are still protected by the First Amendment, why would the Second Amendment not apply to present day guns and/or issues ("Second Amendment", 2016). Despite popular belief, the Second Amendment was not founded on the ideas of violence, hatred, or sport. The Second Amendment declares that all free citizens of the United States have their right to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their neighborhoods. There are even quotes where our Founding Fathers put much emphasis on the importance of bearing arms. For example, Samuel Adams stated that: "The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."(“Second Amendment”, 2016). Just because guns are more advanced now, does not mean Americans do not have the right to defend themselves. Although bearing arms is a right to every free citizen in America, there are some rising present day issues that make some American citizens think twice about this right. These include, but are not limited to: more frequent active shooters,
The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and it protects the right to keep and bear arms. With this law, people are permitted to own firearms for self defense or protection whenever they are physically or offensively attacked by other people. It does not corrupt protection power of citizens to save their selves and live a life free of harm. It does not carelessly provide the right of a person to possess firearms. This law enforces a requirement of firearm license, which can only be purchased after applicants undergo a background check that specifically checks the presence or a possible history of committed criminal cases. The Right to Bear Arms definitely excludes citizens who have a history of criminal acts against the community
The second amendment is a great help though. Remember the military will probably be extremely split on this. (Sorry if I'm remembering any of the following information incorrectly but it should be accurate) Bush conducted polls in the mid 2000s within the military finding that around 20% of the military would carry out orders to fire on US civilians. We can assume and flip this number around if we want to be cynical leaving 80% of the US military to be against us if we wish. Now personally seeing how the National Guard operates its likely that many of them would support the theoretical resistance making it a somewhat more even fight.